Please see the attached link:
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/08/top9.htm
Apparently two top generals, including the head of the ISI, have resigned due to being “superceded”. I am interested in response from Pakistani’s.
What kind of comments you would like to hear. If any Pakistani would say there is something wrong then everyone would jump that Pakistanis are full of conspiracy theories and if we say it is just a routine then you would ask why the national media is saying that generals are elevated while the international media is saying they were sidelined.
Anyhow, it has happened in the past that seniors are sidelined to bring people of similar mental approach to the senior level but this time it seems a bit different as General M. A. Khan and Muzaffar Usmani played a key role in bringing President Musharraf to power.
Here is a link to another story.
Pro-Taliban Generals Sidelined
Monday October 8 12:10 AM ET
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has sidelined two pro-Taliban generals in a reshuffle of senior military ranks announced just before the U.S.-led coalition attacked Taliban positions in Afghanistan (news - web sites).
Musharraf gave no explanation for the move Sunday. It appeared aimed at further consolidating his position in the army at a time when the Pakistani leader faces bitter opposition from Islamic hard-liners to his cooperation with the United States against the Taliban.
Some top military officers have close ties to Islamic groups and Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers, who were allied with Pakistan until Musharraf’s decision to back Washington after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
On Sunday, one of the more hard-line Islamists within the military, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan, was removed from the powerful position of corps commander and given the largely ceremonial job of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Khan played a key role in the October 1999 military coup that ousted the elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and installed Musharraf, teh army chief, as military ruler.
Musharraf also appointed Lt. Gen. Mohammed Yousuf as vice chief of staff of the army, passing over Lt. Gen. Muzaffar Usmani for the post. Usmani, who is currently deputy chief of staff, is considered to be an Islamic hard-liner. His position becomes redundant with the appointment of Yousuf as vice chief.
The shuffle came a day after Musharraf extended his own term as the army chief for an indefinite period and hours before the U.S. and British airstrikes in Afghanistan.
Musharraf, who declared himself president earlier this year, holds the powerful positions of chief executive and the head of the National Security Council.
His government allowed the United States to use Pakistan’s airspace for Sunday’s allied bombing of Afghanistan and has promised to cooperate in the campaign against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and his terror organization al-Qaida. Bin Laden, the chief suspect in the terror attacks on the United States, is sheltered in Afghanistan.
Pakistani Islamic parties had vowed to wage jihad, or holy war, against the United States and its supporters in Pakistan if Afghanistan were attacked.
[This message has been edited by khan_sahib (edited October 08, 2001).]
Im not bothered with the fact that 2 generals were superceded. Thats a routine occurence...happens all the time...and the followup resignations are just as routine.
However, what does bother/worry me is the fact that Gen Musharraf has brought back the practice of having more than one general in the army. His move gives Pak army three 4 star generals....a big no-no.
Mussarraf is in a mess. He has now to devastate every one he created.
[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
*His move gives Pak army three 4 star generals....a big no-no. *
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]
Originally posted by Pristine:
** Why?**
[/quote]
Some can say a four people thinking are better than three! But others can say too many cooks can spoil the broth!
Do you know how much they pay these generals!?
Because it supercedes authority.
One general wont consult another general before making a decision. It is a mistake that Gen Zia made, but survived through luckily, as did his successor. But Musharraf should not take the same risk. Regardless of how close he may be with the other 2, it turns into a power tussle. Traditionally, the Chairman joint chiefs of staff is senior in authority to the Chief of Army staff, i-e Gen Musharraf. Now we'll have to see how the chain of authority works out in this setup. Im not a big fan of it...and neither is the army as a whole.
It seems that the ISI chief was caught with his pants down by the FBI. He had to resign. India pointed the finger in that direction. How far is that true ? Any other reason for a powerful and competent ISI chief to resign??
check out http://www.newsonweb.com/chennaionline/newshomepage.asp
One more time.. Gee what a source…
akif,
You seemed to know a lot about military organization in Pakistan. Are you saying that a similar event can take place as it happened in the summer of 1988 over cholistan desert?
Don't you think that Pakistan would have been better of had democracy allowed strengthening its roots? But it seems that it is too late now. Pakistan is heading towards either further disintegration or taken over by Taleban style government. As I already said due to lack of education (more than 70%) illiterate, any thing, which people of Pakistan perceive that their fundamental belief system is in attack, you are inviting solid resistance from all over Pakistan. That is the main reason of separation from India and JUSTIFICATION of its EXISTENCE.
FARID
[quote]
Originally posted by anand:
Mussarraf is in a mess. He has now to devastate every one he created.
[/quote]
Just a view from the outside, but I think he jettisoned these guys in an effort to look more mainstream in the world. A moderate and successful Islamic country would be a very powerful entity indeed. Given historic links to the west, an educated and progressive population, and nuclear weapons, Pakistan would be a force in the world.
His moves seem very sophisticated to the Western World. I think these generals were too heavily linked to the Taliban, and are now expendible. This is probably why the "Evidence Briefing", was very selectively given, as certain information would have found it's way back to the Taliban far too quickly. The fact that Mussarraf has done this quickly and without blood shed, may actually be the mark of a very savvy world player.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Ohio Guy, Does it takes a very smart person to recognize that his generals were sleeping with the Taleban when the FBI and the CIA showed the links in the intelligence briefing ? Musharraf had no choice in the matter. He was smart enough to realise when the game was up. Now if he can control the streets and calmly get to a civilian government, hopefully Pakistan will be on the road to recovery.
Farid....no...an event similar to 1988 is not foreseeable. The situation is starkly different...the stakes are higher...Pakistan is virtually a war zone, and above all, its a nuclear country. The situation in '88 was disneyland compared to now.
I dont think Pakistan would have benefited from democracy, no. We gave democracy plenty of chances, and other than fattening up the wallets of 2 families, that democracy brought us nothing. I think America has to come to terms with the fact that democracy is not a universally superior form of government. Its just 'a' form of government, period. It works for some, doesnt for others. In Pakistan, traditionally the public has more confidence in the military handling the day to day affairs compared to the Bhuttos and the Sharifs. So if the public is satisfied with it, noone has the moral authority to denounce it in anyway.
Pakistans existence is more secure at this time than it has been in a long time. Pakistan is militarily sound, and the government has taken a balanced stand in the current crisis. What I mentioned above regarding 3 generals is more of an internal issue that will affect merely the top brass...not something that will affect the army as a whole. While that may not translate into something catastrophic, it would turn into the resignation of one, or even two of the three generals. And frankly, if Musharraf is one of the generals forced into resignation, it will affect Pakistans smooth transition into a balanced economy. Pakistan needs to stay on a course. The change in power every other day hurts our country just as much as does the presence of bhuttos and sharifs.
Im not worried about Pakistan....just worried about some egos.
Any other reason for a powerful and competent ISI chief to resign??
Being superseded is a far bigger reason for a General to resign than getting pointed by india, of all countries. India having a hand in this is as credible a news item as was that hijacking last week.
[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
***Any other reason for a powerful and competent ISI chief to resign??*
Being superseded is a far bigger reason for a General to resign than getting pointed by india, of all countries. India having a hand in this is as credible a news item as was that hijacking last week.**
[/quote]
The news I've got from the western sources claims the ISI chief failed to persuade Mullah Omar to hand over Bin Laden so he was dismissed.
Correct
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif
[This message has been edited by The Old Man (edited October 08, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
**Because it supercedes authority.
One general wont consult another general before making a decision. It is a mistake that Gen Zia made, but survived through luckily, as did his successor. But Musharraf should not take the same risk. Regardless of how close he may be with the other 2, it turns into a power tussle. Traditionally, the Chairman joint chiefs of staff is senior in authority to the Chief of Army staff, i-e Gen Musharraf. Now we'll have to see how the chain of authority works out in this setup. Im not a big fan of it...and neither is the army as a whole.**
[/quote]
My knowledge about Pakistan's military matters is composed almost entirely of the newspaper reports and analysis, so I may be completely off the mark, however, the impression I got was that JCSC Chairman is a largely ceremonial position, and Musharraf used this to sideline Gen Aziz. Speculation is that Musharraf will put in one of his closer friends in the powerful position of Corps Commander Lahore.
Also, the appointment of Gen Muhammad Yousaf was made so that he can take care of day-to-day affairs of Pak Army, since the COAS (Musharraf) wishes to concentrate on being the President. This also allows a lot of promotions down the chain, because Musharraf is now going to hold on to the COAS position indefinitely. Otherwise, this would have blocked a number of officers from moving up. Almost exactly what Zia did, until the day his plane exploded in mid-air.
So, purely from an operational stand-point, the CJCSC is exactly the same rank as VCOAS, and both have different operational reigns. I am still not sure why would that be a problem?
Chief of ISI is entirely a different ball-game. Lieutenant General Ehsanul Haq is a known moderate and Musharraf wanted to dilute the influence of Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, a known Talibaan sympathiser.
Similarly Gen Mehmood and Gen Usmani have basically been kicked out, since they seem to be known sympathisers of islamic forces in Afghanistan. This is to pre-empt a change in Pakistan's foreign policy which is already in effect and visible. Now, the meeting of Corps Commanders, which is arguably the most important decision-making authority in Pakistan right now, will have a lot more similar-thinking people. Those who represent the other side are mostly side-lined or kicked out.
That is the impression I got, reading from today's newspapers.
[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** The news I've got from the western sources claims the ISI chief failed to persuade Mullah Omar to hand over Bin Laden so he was dismissed.
**
[/quote]
Nothing but masala.
Pakistan has been getting unusually high exposure in the media lately. Most of it has been positive...and some of it has even been stern, right in the face of the USA.
i)Pakistan not allowing any US ground troops.
ii)Pakistan laying down specific demands to counter its support in the coalition.
iii)Pakistan not severing ties with the Taliban
iv)Pakistan warning the US not to aid the NA or try to dislodge the Taliban govt.
v)Pakistan allowing an even narrower air corridor than was initially agreed upon.
These 'media defeats' have been humiliating to an extent for the US...and its not unthinkable for them to use the ISI chief's replacement as an excuse to do some media boxing themselves. just a face saving exercise, of which india decided to be a part as well.
After the humiliation India needs a lot of face saving to do.
Pristine…if these promotions have anything to do with the resigning general’s roles in Afghanistan, then this move will backfire in an even worse way. Right now, its Gen Musharraf alone who is balancing army and politics. If any other officer wants to be in that role as well, that will create a lot of friction. The main reason Gen Musharraf is respected around the circles is because he has maintained that balance fairly well.
Authoritatively, the Chmn. JCOS is the senior most military man in the country. All the Chiefs of the 3 forces report to him before finalizing decisions. The reason why it was a superficial post in Zia’s rule is because Zia, in exchange for the authority that was ‘taken away’ from his JCOS, gave him the rank of a General despite already having a 4 star general as his VCOAS.
In most countries around the world, you will notice that the JCOS is usually an officer from either the Navy or the Air force…meaning, one of the weaker forces. Having two 4 stars in the Navy or the Airforce is considered relatively benign compared to having 2, or in Pakistans case, 3 in the Army.
Most of Musharrafs reputation and ‘validity’ has arisen from the fact that he has taken firm stances in Pakistans military approach..eg Kargil, insistence on Kashmir on his trip to India, current crisis etc. If he devolves into a full time politician, he will definitely lose some of his clout as a General…unless hes planning on retiring as a general, and taking on the Presidency full time.
However, the results remain to be seen. Im sure he didnt sign the executive order single handedly. Im sure he had a consensus. But such a consensus amongst ur own, against ur own, treads on a fine line.
Hope for the best